Criminology

The right to counsel is regarded as a fundamental right in the criminal justice system. The right is clearly defined in the provisions of the Sixth Amendments of the American constitution which gives a defendant the legal right to have a counsel during their case trial (Crawford, 2001). Although the Sixth Amendment applies to defendants in federal courts, it is found to apply to state court through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Crawford, 2001). However, during the case of Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court found right of counsel necessary in enforcing the right to be free from self-incrimination as provided for in the Fifth Amendment (Kelly, 2009).

Through its interpretation of the sixth amendment, the Supreme Court makes it a mandatory for a court to appoint a legal counsel for defendants faced with financial andor psychological impairments (Tomkovicz, 2002). This makes right to a legal counsel a fundamental right for all during any criminal justice proceedings. This paper is written to identify the various aspects of the right to a counsel, how it developed and its role in the criminal justice system. The author also gives a discussion on the role of attorneys as it relates to the right to counsel and the legal provisions on right to self-representation.

Aspect of right to counsel
The right to counsel is termed as one of the basic tools, which have helped in mitigating unfair treatment of crime suspects in our criminal justice system. As the guiding rule for the realization of equitable justice to all in the criminal justice system, a crime suspect is not guilty until convicted during a court trail (Gardner, 2000). Therefore, the key aspect of the right to counsel is to protect a defendant against unfair practices by the prosecution.

This concern is based on the fact that some members of the society have little of no knowledge of the constitutional rights, which serve to protect them during a criminal proceeding. Indeed, the right to counsel is made more exclusive in protecting American citizens against misconduct by law enforcement by dictating for the right to counsel while in police custody (Crawford, 2001).

Development of the right to counsel
The sixth amendment of the US constitution is the root source of the right to counsel (Crawford, 2001). This amendment of the constitution clearly states that a defendant has a constitutional right to have the assistance of a legal counsel from the beginning of formal charges against them. Such a constitutional provision on the right to counsel is legally applicable to both federal and state courts through the due process clause found in the fourteenth amendment of the American constitution (Crawford, 2001).

However, the Supreme Court asserted that the right to a counsel is provided for in the fifth amendment of the constitution dictated for the right to counsel. This was identified during the Miranda v. Arizona case were the court reasoned that the right to counsel was the best tool to effectively enforce the constitutional privilege of being free from self incrimination (Kelly, 2009). It is this case which is seen as the source of the protection against violation a crime suspects right of counsel during arrest, while in custody and during interrogation.

When the right to counsel attaches to criminal procedure
According to the Supreme Court, the right to counsel is a constitutional right that is applicable to criminal suspect during a criminal proceeding from the time of arrest all through to their first appeal (Kelly, 2009). From the Supreme Courts interpretation of the sixth amendment, criminal justice courts are legally bound to appoint a legal counsel to defendants who are economically or psychologically challenged.

Based on the Fifth Amendment and its reflection on the right to counsel, law enforcement are dictated by the law to ensure that a crime suspect is informed of their right to a counsel assistance as well as a right not to be compelled to self incrimination (Gardner, 2000).

Legal provisions on right to self-representation
Although, the constitution dictates that a defendant must have the assistance of a legal counsel during any criminal proceedings, this provision can be waived by the defendant. This is because the same laws dictating for the right to a legal counsel provide for the right to self-representation (Crawford, 2001). Nevertheless, based on the Supreme Courts ruling in the Miranda v. Arizona, waiving the right to a counsel by a crime suspect must be deliberate, and based on information and intelligence. This means that a prosecution providing evidence against a defendant collected without the presence of a legal counsel must sufficiently proof that the suspect intentionally waived their right to a counsel (Kelly, 2009).

On the other side, the sixth amendment allows a defendant to voluntarily and intelligently waive their right to counsel during a case trial. Therefore, the prosecution and court can only claim that a defendant waived their right to counsel if the act was intentional and the suspect had been sufficiently informed of this right. This means that the law enforcement must inform a crime suspect of the importance of the right to counsel and the potential legal implications of waiving it (Kelly, 2009).

Since the sole purpose of having in place the right to counsel is to ensure justice to all, the provisions self-representation are limited. The mentally impaired as well as juveniles face much legal opposition to waiving their right to counsel. Such are based on the fact that these two categories of crime suspects are perceived to potentially lack intent, knowledge and intelligence (Tomkovicz, 2002). This is why states like Illinois and Texas prohibit juveniles from waiving their right to counsel while other states call for the involvement of attorneys consultation before the suspect waives their right to counsel.

Role of attorneys as it relates to right to counsel
The role of attorneys as it relates to the right to a legal counsel by a defendant is to oversee the realization of fairness and justice to the defendant (Gardner, 2000). To realize this, the attorney serves to provide legal advice to the defendant on the legalities involved in their case. Such include informing the defendant of their rights and what they should expect at the various stages of the criminal process against them. The attorney also serves to ensure that the constitutional rights of the defendant are not violated (Kelly, 2009). The attorney therefore engages in identifying and mitigating any form of misconduct by the law enforcement during the criminal proceeding.

Another role of an attorney is acting as a defense for the defendant during a criminal proceeding (Kelly, 2009). To achieve this, attorneys must investigate and proof the accuracy of facts and allegations brought as evidence against the defendant in court. They dictate the technicalities involved in the court process of formulating, asking, understanding andor answering questions by the defendant (Crawford, 2001). Based on this, attorneys serve to object improper questions and evidence to the defendant as well as presenting any other possible legal defense for the defendant.

Conclusion
All in all, the right to counsel is a fundamental right for all American citizens that aim at enhancing the provision of equitable justice to all in our criminal justice system (Crawford, 2001). The right to counsel is applicable to both federal and state courts through the legal provisions in the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment of the US constitution. It has been identified that the right to counsel has its sole purpose in ensuing justice to a crime suspect all through their criminal process. It is however worthy noting that the right is not applicable to criminal proceedings involving civil cases.